The attached document gives the basis of my defamation claim against Mr Cull, and I believe it is in the public interest for my response to Mr Cull’s defaming me in election year to be known before the coming election, as the High Court case can unfortunately not be heard prior to the election.

### whaleoil.co.nz on July 21, 2016 at 12:30pmCouncil’s ‘toxic culture’
By Teknonym
Local government throughout NZ is becoming corrupt. Slowly but surely the tide is changing. It’s not the brown paper bag carry on – yet. But the hallmarks of a slippery slide are well in play. The start of all things slippery begins with increased bureaucracy and more people making decisions without the proper scrutiny. Attitudes shift from serving the public to a ‘we know best’ arrogance. Then it’s only a one-degree shift in mindset to lording over all and sundry, loose practices, more troughing and then, suddenly – it’s corrupt. I look for the cracks.Read more

So who’s paying for all this legal carry-on? Not us ratepayers again I hope. It’s not part of mayoral duties to defame anyone.
(Nor is it part of councillors’ duties to put up with having their reputation impugned inside council and out!)

So, again – is DCC paying for lawyers? For one or both men?

A person not paying for their own legal team has little incentive to watch the cost.

### dunedintv.co.nz Thu, 21 July 2016Race for mayoralty dirty already
The race for the Dunedin mayoralty is only just under way, but already it appears to be getting dirty. It’s understood incumbent Mayor Dave Cull was served with defamation papers in Stuart Street this morning, by a private investigator. The case was initiated by returning mayoral contender Lee Vandervis. It relates to a comment made by the Mayor in a council meeting last year. Vandervis has confirmed the papers were served, and says it’s now up to the Mayor to choose how to respond.Ch39 Link [no video available]

—

How can a defamation action be “dirty”, when it is the Mayor of Dunedin who has called an elected representative a liar both inside and outside Council.

The dirt was flung by Mayor Loose-lipped Cull. The video record and local newspaper shows.

Fri, 22 Jul 2016ODT: $500,000 claim against Cull
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull is vowing to defend a $500,000 defamation claim, after being served with legal papers while walking down the street yesterday. Mr Cull was handed the documents by private investigator Wayne Idour near the corner of Bath and lower Stuart Sts yesterday morning.

Mr Idour said when contacted he had planned to serve the papers on Mr Cull in the council’s Civic Centre building, but had seen the mayor passing by while sitting in Sugar Cafe.

Guess what – no “comments” allowed on ODT online story!
Hands up everyone who’s surprised.
Never mind, you can send a paper letter to the editor of the ODT, I’m sure it will be published. Just to be sure write it in green crayon on the back of a deconstructed cereal packet, that’s irresistible – FACT.

I’m not sure of the law in the area of defamation – I’m sure many others will have better knowledge – but it seems to me that if, in a public place, someone calls someone else a liar and that comment is repeated and then published in both print and video media, then the person making the comment has only one defence open to them and that is proving that the person to whom the comments were addressed is indeed a liar.

The other issue of course is costs. It may be that the DCC has insurance to cover legal costs of any action taken by people acting in their role as “directors” of the City. But it would be entirely inappropriate if unequal legal representation were provided to the parties involved.

I do hope that whoever adjudicates in this action notices any background behaviour. It doesn’t take too long to come to the conclusion that Mayor Cull exhibits some really negative behaviour. There is also a lamentable record of the DCC being advised of illegal behaviour without action being taken. All relevant to this I would have thought.

Russandbev – ”
“….The ODT understands the council had insurance to protect ratepayers from the cost of claims against elected representatives in their council duties, although it was not yet clear if a claim resulting from Mr Cull’s comments would be covered.
Ratepayers could still be left to pick up the bill for associated costs, including legal bills, should Mr Cull lose, the ODT understands….”

Defaming someone outside council – does this qualify as “their council duties”?